On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote:
> Dear LizR, > > That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an > observer in such a universe, it's far too simple." There could not be one > wherefore "he could deduce the existence of 17 theoretically, and work > out its properties" is impossible: probability zero. > I can't see the significance of this argument. If we take a large enough number, say 10^80, that observers *can *exist, we can then ask whether such observers could work out the properties of numbers greater than 10^80. Since we appear to be in such a universe, the answer is yes. And we can also work out the properties of a universe containing 16 objects. So it appears that observers in a universe which allows observers to exist can work out the properties of universes containing any number of objects. (Or, for short, they can do maths,) > > We could never experience such and thus it follows that, to us, such a > universe does not exist. Now, to follow the chain of reasoning, consider > the collection of universes that are such that 17 is not prime is true in > that collection. Could "we" experience anything like those universes? > I can't see any chain of reasoning. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
